Boeing Brilliance - Sometimes I am just amazed that Airbus is even in existence
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flap 5,
I am currently on the A320. Roomly cockpit, but that is about the only thing I like better than the Boeings i have flown. A majority of my fellow Scarebus pilots agree. Besides, i hate being called a "Retard" everytime I land.
I am currently on the A320. Roomly cockpit, but that is about the only thing I like better than the Boeings i have flown. A majority of my fellow Scarebus pilots agree. Besides, i hate being called a "Retard" everytime I land.
Next time you airbus boys are feeling cocky, go race a 757 through 10K, 70 seat CRJ for that matter. I remember reading not too long ago on PPRUNE a bus lover defending the hairdryers they like to call engines. He said the lower thrust allowed a safer aircraft in case of an engine failure at V1. Amazing.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once or twice when heavy I have been asked by Brest if I am still climbing! Always wanted to reply yes but it is a French aeroplane, never had the nerve so just told them it is an Airbus and yes I am still climbing!
No one ever asked me that in the 757 or 767. Then again it's nice to look down on all the 767's across the Atlantic as I pass them in the 330. Of course you have to hate the 747's and 777's!
No one ever asked me that in the 757 or 767. Then again it's nice to look down on all the 767's across the Atlantic as I pass them in the 330. Of course you have to hate the 747's and 777's!
Last edited by kinsman; 17th Jul 2003 at 18:06.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: 30 West
Age: 65
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
West Coast.
While the 320 may climb gently up to it's cruise height in comparison to the 757, try it the other way. We can go faster, lower and slow down quicker than you, we are more adaptable in the TMA because of it and we are always complaining that we have to slow down for the Boings. In our fine unrestricted skies, should we wish, we can do 340kts to 15 miles , slow, configure and be stable with power up at 700' without the use of speedbrake. Now at that point, we could look up to see the Boing doing a low pass!
My watch is of adequate size, my wife can read it well and she says it is a fine piece. I post to provoke, enjoy
While the 320 may climb gently up to it's cruise height in comparison to the 757, try it the other way. We can go faster, lower and slow down quicker than you, we are more adaptable in the TMA because of it and we are always complaining that we have to slow down for the Boings. In our fine unrestricted skies, should we wish, we can do 340kts to 15 miles , slow, configure and be stable with power up at 700' without the use of speedbrake. Now at that point, we could look up to see the Boing doing a low pass!
My watch is of adequate size, my wife can read it well and she says it is a fine piece. I post to provoke, enjoy
Funny, never seen a bus pass a 757. What happens more often, approach saying go really fast, or the usual reduce to xx. The later, and when they do, nothing goes as slow on final as a 757.
All things considered the better performance aircraft is the 757.
All things considered the better performance aircraft is the 757.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Scottsdale, AZ USA
Posts: 728
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dittos to West Coast,
I fly out of Phoenix (The Surface Of The Sun these days) and we always eat America West Airbusses' lunch in the -300/500 or especially the -700 737. Even heavyweight. I have taken off with 20 miles in trail and by 15,000 feet, I have caught up with the Bus infront of me and he is 1500 feet below me. Same out of LAX with other Bus carriers.
PT
Javelin --I hope you never cross paths with any airborne livestock. Years back a 727 F/O was killed climbing out of SFO when a goose came through the sheetmetal and hit the ADI knocking it out of the dash, striking the F/O. I hit a goose at approach speed and my radome folded in. A buddy hit a goose in an F-111 over the English Channel and ended up breathing seawater until he could get out of the crew capsule. A Pelican hit the ventral of a 737-200 going into OAK one night about 1 mile out and nearly ripped the whole fixture from the jet. Miraculously, they unbolted it and the damage was confined to that part.
Good Luck!
I fly out of Phoenix (The Surface Of The Sun these days) and we always eat America West Airbusses' lunch in the -300/500 or especially the -700 737. Even heavyweight. I have taken off with 20 miles in trail and by 15,000 feet, I have caught up with the Bus infront of me and he is 1500 feet below me. Same out of LAX with other Bus carriers.
PT
Javelin --I hope you never cross paths with any airborne livestock. Years back a 727 F/O was killed climbing out of SFO when a goose came through the sheetmetal and hit the ADI knocking it out of the dash, striking the F/O. I hit a goose at approach speed and my radome folded in. A buddy hit a goose in an F-111 over the English Channel and ended up breathing seawater until he could get out of the crew capsule. A Pelican hit the ventral of a 737-200 going into OAK one night about 1 mile out and nearly ripped the whole fixture from the jet. Miraculously, they unbolted it and the damage was confined to that part.
Good Luck!
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
West Coast
A330 fly's slower on the approach than any large aeroplane I have ever flown including the 757. It is a C rather than a D, which is amazing for an aircraft with a MTOW 230 tons! Though when you look at that wing perhaps not so amazing.
Have to say 350kts to 15 miles is not healthy!
Planetruth.
The 737 is a fine aeroplane but it burns more fuel than a bus and costs more to buy which is why the accountants love Airbus and Boeing is having a hard time at the moment. The Airbus will cruise faster than a 737 can't say I know anything about the –700 perhaps it is faster than the older models.
Speeds not everything .01 mach will save you very little time perhaps 1 or 2 mins on a four hour sector and cost you fuel. Fact is in these cost conscious times the Bus wins hands down as far as the accountants are concerned and what pilots think really does not matter!
A330 fly's slower on the approach than any large aeroplane I have ever flown including the 757. It is a C rather than a D, which is amazing for an aircraft with a MTOW 230 tons! Though when you look at that wing perhaps not so amazing.
Have to say 350kts to 15 miles is not healthy!
Planetruth.
The 737 is a fine aeroplane but it burns more fuel than a bus and costs more to buy which is why the accountants love Airbus and Boeing is having a hard time at the moment. The Airbus will cruise faster than a 737 can't say I know anything about the –700 perhaps it is faster than the older models.
Speeds not everything .01 mach will save you very little time perhaps 1 or 2 mins on a four hour sector and cost you fuel. Fact is in these cost conscious times the Bus wins hands down as far as the accountants are concerned and what pilots think really does not matter!
Last edited by kinsman; 18th Jul 2003 at 20:29.
Kinsman
I made a conscious decision at a young age to be a pilot, not an accountant. We have plenty of bean counters lying (and lieing) around. I like you deal in speed and performance. There the boeings may not be as effecient, but they do leave comparable sized aircraft behind.
I made a conscious decision at a young age to be a pilot, not an accountant. We have plenty of bean counters lying (and lieing) around. I like you deal in speed and performance. There the boeings may not be as effecient, but they do leave comparable sized aircraft behind.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Scottsdale, AZ USA
Posts: 728
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kinsman,
The "classic" generation of 737's were designed in the mid 80's and their fuel efficiency is horrible when compared to the 737-700. The new bird will cruise at 410 burning 2000 lbs per side at .78 mach. Best forward speed? Vmo is about .83. Boeing flight tested it to .95 mach with no airframe flutter or buffet. An aircraft can be fast --and efficient if designed so. The -700 climbs, cruises and descends nearly at Vmo.
All I know is I am constantly running over my other Bus driving brethren in climb or descent. Of course, once we get above them, they are no factor.
Javelin,
If I drove a 737 to 15 miles at 350kts theres' no way I'd make the airport. The airplane is far too clean. At medium weights I can comfortably do 250 to 12 mi and configure without beating up the flaps. In idle, a 737 (old or new) takes about 1 mile for each 10 kts of speed reduction to 210kts. At 350 kts I'd have to go idle about 20 miles out to make it without additional "drag help."
The Bus must not be quite as clean as you're letting on or your "dropping the Dunlops" at max extension speed and riding the boards down at flap limiting speed. Not fun for the SLF's.
Now the SmurfJet (BAE 146) with the clamshell brakes could reportedly do 250 to the marker and make it, albeit still by pressing the passengers faces into the seatbacks in front of them.
Happy Trails!
PT
The "classic" generation of 737's were designed in the mid 80's and their fuel efficiency is horrible when compared to the 737-700. The new bird will cruise at 410 burning 2000 lbs per side at .78 mach. Best forward speed? Vmo is about .83. Boeing flight tested it to .95 mach with no airframe flutter or buffet. An aircraft can be fast --and efficient if designed so. The -700 climbs, cruises and descends nearly at Vmo.
All I know is I am constantly running over my other Bus driving brethren in climb or descent. Of course, once we get above them, they are no factor.
Javelin,
If I drove a 737 to 15 miles at 350kts theres' no way I'd make the airport. The airplane is far too clean. At medium weights I can comfortably do 250 to 12 mi and configure without beating up the flaps. In idle, a 737 (old or new) takes about 1 mile for each 10 kts of speed reduction to 210kts. At 350 kts I'd have to go idle about 20 miles out to make it without additional "drag help."
The Bus must not be quite as clean as you're letting on or your "dropping the Dunlops" at max extension speed and riding the boards down at flap limiting speed. Not fun for the SLF's.
Now the SmurfJet (BAE 146) with the clamshell brakes could reportedly do 250 to the marker and make it, albeit still by pressing the passengers faces into the seatbacks in front of them.
Happy Trails!
PT
Last edited by PlaneTruth; 19th Jul 2003 at 01:13.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: U.K
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone, regardless of age who made any sort of decision, conscious or not to be a pilot, would not claim they are being one by operating any of the modern Boeing or Airbus types. I fear you would need to go back twenty five years or so to be able to do that.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ahhhvc813
Could not agree more!
Like it or not West Coast this whole Boeing/Airbus argument is nothing more than a P****** competition! At the end of the day as long as I get paid and have enough time off to go and play with fun aeroplanes then I don't care what the accountants want me to fly!
Could not agree more!
Like it or not West Coast this whole Boeing/Airbus argument is nothing more than a P****** competition! At the end of the day as long as I get paid and have enough time off to go and play with fun aeroplanes then I don't care what the accountants want me to fly!
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Scottsdale, AZ USA
Posts: 728
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AhhhVC813,
Well, not quite ALL of us.
My carrier still insists on no vertical nav activation in order to keep us in the loop and monitoring descent profiles/ situational awareness, etc. While we do fly the plane directionally via LNAV, climb and descent are handflown (pitch portion).
I regularly fly HUD handflown CAT III approaches to 50 foot minimums and 300 RVR in the winter. Takeoffs at 50 RVR are similarly handflown to 1200 AGL.
I will grant you this: NONE of the 737 aircraft hand fly as well as the old -200 advanced. From the minute Approach says, "Cleared for the visual approach (followed by the loud "click" of the autopilot disengaging --Whoo Hoo!) none of the series hand flies as sweet as the old bird. The control harmony is excellent and the feedback is near perfect. The 300 on final has all the feel of a dumptruck and the 700 is not much better. You almost can't screw up a 200 landing. The 90% of the flight to final gets kind of old without power and all the other conveniences one gets used to.
Ahh, the old days. My missus says I ought to leave it at that.
PT
Well, not quite ALL of us.
My carrier still insists on no vertical nav activation in order to keep us in the loop and monitoring descent profiles/ situational awareness, etc. While we do fly the plane directionally via LNAV, climb and descent are handflown (pitch portion).
I regularly fly HUD handflown CAT III approaches to 50 foot minimums and 300 RVR in the winter. Takeoffs at 50 RVR are similarly handflown to 1200 AGL.
I will grant you this: NONE of the 737 aircraft hand fly as well as the old -200 advanced. From the minute Approach says, "Cleared for the visual approach (followed by the loud "click" of the autopilot disengaging --Whoo Hoo!) none of the series hand flies as sweet as the old bird. The control harmony is excellent and the feedback is near perfect. The 300 on final has all the feel of a dumptruck and the 700 is not much better. You almost can't screw up a 200 landing. The 90% of the flight to final gets kind of old without power and all the other conveniences one gets used to.
Ahh, the old days. My missus says I ought to leave it at that.
PT
